America is in the midst of a raging cultural and spiritual war. Forces of Good, Light, Conservatism and a Judeo-Christian Worldview daily battle the forces of Evil, Darkness, Socialism, False Religions and Philosophies. A Good Choice is on the frontlines exposing evil across America’s political and social spectrum.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

RAD is bad part 4

This is series of articles
designed to help professing Christians to turn from their wicked ways and get
back to following New Testament ethics. Compromise is increasing in the
church. Popular opinion among churchgoers is often in stark contrast to
the very words of Jesus on many issues. Christians need to know the word
of God and get back to using it as a reference book when they are faced with
important decisions.

RADis my acronym forremarriage after divorce. This is the fourth article in a sub-serieson this topic. In review I wrote:

1. RAD is sin. It is the moral equivalent of
adultery.

2. There is only one exception
given in the Bible. A
divorcedmancan remarry without sinning only if
the reason for the divorce was his wife’sfornication(i.e. it must be a sin of a sexual
nature--the NIV incorrectly translates that word as “marital
unfaithfulness”).

As I mentioned before, there are many legitimate grounds for
divorce such as physical abuse, alcoholism, and
abandonment. But this fact does not mean
that it is morally acceptable remarry afterwards. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some
gray areas on this topic or that the scriptures can’t be legalistically
interpreted. Here are some examples:

1.
What if the (only) ex-spouse of a divorced man or woman dies? Would it then be acceptable for this divorcee
to remarry? Romans 7:2-3 seems to lean
toward saying yes to this, at least in the case of a divorced woman. But the passages in the gospels and I
Corinthians 7:10-11 seem to lean the other way.
It is possible that in this case, the man or woman is classified as a
widow or widower and not really a divorcee.
I am not sure about this.

2.
What if a man divorces his wife because he believes that his wife
committed fornication, but finds out later that it didn’t really happen? Would it then be OK for the man to marry another
woman anyway? Where does the burden of
proof lie when a man is to claim the exception of Matthew 19:9? Should the church determine the fact in these
cases? These are hard questions. I know of a case where, for spite, a woman
told her husband that she was having affair with someone but it was a lie. After the divorce, he found out that it was
not true.